[Bug 2103480] Review Request: rust-print_bytes - Print bytes as losslessly as possible

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480

Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gotmax@e.email
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |gotmax@e.email
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
             Status|NEW                         |POST
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/COPYRIGHT
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files

This is a problem with rust2rpm and not necessarily something that can be fixed
here.

I suppose the best way to handle this for now would be to remove the license
files and README from %{crate_instdir} in %install and just mark the relative
paths with `%doc` and `%license` to install them in the usual locations.

- 's/Patch0:/Patch: /'. Source isn't numbered and Patch doesn't need to be
  either. Numbering Sources and Patches is done automatically in modern RPM
  versions.

rpmlint finds:
rust-print_bytes.src: W: strange-permission rust-print_bytes.spec 600
NOTE: This should be fixed

rust-print_bytes+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
NOTE: spurious

rust-print_bytes+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
rust-print_bytes.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
rust-print_bytes-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
NOTE: I assume you switched these to use SPDX identifiers now that that's been
approved. The Change owners said[1] that's allowed now, but apparently rpmlint
hasn't been updated.

[1]:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/N2JPAJRXMVQ75G67V6YCHI74PX5KVGZ2/

Ctrl-F for NOTE for my other interspersed comments (2/3 are about
fedora-review's output and not actual issues).

All of the issues I pointed out are minor nitpicks and mostly the fault of
rust2rpm, so package approved.

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/cargo/registry
NOTE: Owned by cargo
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Handled by dependency generator
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
NOTE: ExclusiveArch to %{rust_arches}
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
     print_bytes-devel , rust-print_bytes+default-devel , rust-
     print_bytes+specialization-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
NOTE: rust2rpm -p should probably give a more descriptive comment
than "# Initial patched metadata", but oh well.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/print_bytes/0.6.0/download#/print_bytes-0.6.0.crate
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
3057e36886667c470305bb076abc7f2f77a5662cb8de4124a4f5e6206ad2acd7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
3057e36886667c470305bb076abc7f2f77a5662cb8de4124a4f5e6206ad2acd7


Requires
--------
rust-print_bytes-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo

rust-print_bytes+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(print_bytes)

rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cargo
    crate(print_bytes)



Provides
--------
rust-print_bytes-devel:
    crate(print_bytes)
    rust-print_bytes-devel

rust-print_bytes+default-devel:
    crate(print_bytes/default)
    rust-print_bytes+default-devel

rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel:
    crate(print_bytes/specialization)
    rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
---
/home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2103480-rust-print_bytes/srpm/rust-print_bytes.spec
 2022-07-03 16:40:28.275454159 -0500
+++
/home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2103480-rust-print_bytes/srpm-unpacked/rust-print_bytes.spec
2022-07-03 12:21:43.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.6)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 # Generated by rust2rpm 21
 %bcond_without check
@@ -85,3 +94,4 @@

 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Sun Jul 03 2022 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> 0.6.0-1
+- First version

Related to rpmautospec.

Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2103480
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, R, fonts,
SugarActivity, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux